To the Terror of the People

SayUncle has the background on the case of Embody v. Ward, in regards to an SAF brief that must be read if you’re into all the detailed legal stuff. Generally speaking, in common law it was an offense to go about armed to the terror of the people. Blackstone was never remarkably clear about exactly what that meant, but in the modern context Embody probably falls into that category.

The District court reached that the Second Amendment right was limited, not applying in public parks. SAF’s brief essentially argues Embody can be disposed of without having to so limit the right. From their argument:

Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner that may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conductive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms. But once a legislature determines that only a particular manner of carrying will be permitted, that choice must be honored.

No doubt they are going to take some heat for that statement from people who fail to grasp the implications of fighting this battle out in the courts, but I think their chosen strategy here is a wise one, that comports with the original common law conceptions of the right, and how it’s been implemented in the American tradition. The state may regulate the manner of carry, but may not outright prohibit it. Under SAF’s standard here, it would be questionable, for instance, about whether New Jersey could, say, ban all but open carry, since it’s pretty obviously not the “more socially-cunductive option” in regards to the exercise of the right. But under this standard, New Jersey could ban open carry.

For folks who don’t like this, you can thank Leonard Embody. Now the game is to try to undo the damage he has already done, and I think if SAF’s brief is influential with the court here, it’s the best way to accomplish that.

153 thoughts on “To the Terror of the People”

  1. The only issue I can see here is that if the courts decide that a state can regulate the manner of carry then that can get turned into “unloaded, locked and with the ammo stored seperately” or some other such foolishness.

    I agree that Embody has not acted in the wisest manner, but to allow a generalized statement of “fear” to be the yardstick by which criminal carry is measured? That also is unwise. One of the standard complaints of the anti’s is that they “don’t feel safe” around firearms and those who carry them.

    I just think that of all the possible outcomes of this situation, the SAF’s course of action will result in one of the least desireable.

  2. His intent wasn’t to just be armed, it was to cause a stir. Aren’t there already laws that address that? Disorderly conduct comes to mind. But this guy has plenty more up his sleeve, and apparently relishes being a thorn in the side of gun owners. Last I heard, he was suing the local CLEO for not signing off on his suppressor. How much do you want to bet he’s got some poorly conceived stunt planned for that suppressor?

    I don’t know if he’s intentionally working against us, or if he’s just painfully oblivious to the harm he’s causing. It’s hard to believe someone is that stupid, but then we have others who thought having OC rallies at coffee shops was a good idea so who knows.

    1. I will open carry my silencer attached to my ar pistol. I will also wear a chest rig with extra mags full of m855, and a ballistic vest. I’m a law abiding person, there is nothing to fear.

      1. You may be a law abiding person, but you’re clearly not well. Before you say or do anything, try asking yourself “Would a sane person say/do this?” For pretty much every one of your stunts, the answer is an emphatic “no”. But I’m guessing you already know that. Maybe your next stunt is the one that pushes it over the edge and the nice men will put you someplace safe until you’re well.

  3. Errmmm … one of the definitions of an AOW is a firearm disguised as something that is not a firearm, such as pen guns and cane guns.

    They might be able to hang an unregistered AOW rap on this clown for permanently disguising his AK as an airsoft toy.

  4. I don’t understand why two can’t play this game. Instead of waiting for the slow cases to wind through Illinois and Maryland and DC, why not get a county in Texas to abuse somebody? Pass a bad law in a backwater, enforce it against one volunteer, rig it so that the judge who hears the case rules against the constitution so it can be appealed, and so on through the state supreme court to SCOTUS.

    With confederates on both sides, the issues can be framed exactly how SAF wants them. Leave awkward details out of the trial transcipt.

  5. If the author of this blog would have read actual Tennessee case law they would have found something very different from what the delusional Gura wrote in his amicus curiae.

    “At the May term of the circuit court for the county of White, an indictment was found against the plaintiff in error, in substance as follows: The grand jurors for the state, etc., upon their oath, present that William Simpson, laborer, on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1833, with force and arms, at the county of White, aforesaid, being arrayed in a warlike manner, then and there in a certain public street and highway situate, unlawfully, and to the great terror and disturbance of divers good citizens of the said state, then and there being, an affray did make, in contempt of the laws of the land, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

    “But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, “that the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Article 11, sec. 26. It is submitted, that this clause of our constitution fully meets and opposes the passage or clause in Hawkins, of “a man’s arming himself with dangerous and unusual weapons,” as being an independent ground of affray, so as of itself to constitute the offence cognizable by indictment. By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgment a constitutional privilege which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it the absence of such a view.
    On the authorities, therefore, I am of opinion that this record of an indictment against the plaintiff in error does not contain the charge of an affray, or any other specific offence cognizable at common law by indictment, and that there is nothing either in our Constitution or acts of Assembly in repugnancy to this conclusion, but, on the contrary, strongly corroborative thereof.”

    Simpson v State 1833

    1. That is Tennessee law. You’re suing in federal court, where that law doesn’t apply.

      Also, as I recall, you were not charged with an affray, and this case law has to do with that. Your case has nothing to do with what you are quoting here.

      1. Gura quoted english law in his amicus, I responded to that with actual case law.

  6. Now hold on Mike, et al. This man hasn’t broken any laws, hasn’t harmed or threatened any one, seems better versed in the law than any of us, and is out on the front lines exercising and defending OUR Creator-endowed rights while we sit in our armchairs denouncing him and wanting to lock him away in a hospital! Now who’s the tyrant wanting to squelch an innocent man’s liberty???

    If this were 16 December 1773, I should think you fellows would have had the Boston Tea Partiers locked up in a psycho ward so as not to upset King George III!

    Are we liberty-loving patriots, or loyalists to a tyrant who offers us bread and circuses if we “tone down” our rights? I know which one Mr. Embody is! And I thank him!

    1. For those who think GURA and the SAF want to expand the right to bear arms…

      “Plaintiffs do not lament the prohibition of unloaded open handgun carry, which they have consistently asserted is dangerous, useless, and in any event not constitutionally protected. It is now crystal clear that the only way to bear handguns for self-defense in those portions of the state where most people might actually be found is by having a license to do so, the issuance of which is improperly left to the licensing authority’s complete discretion. Notably, the prohibition on the open carrying of unloaded handguns exempts current or retired peace officers, Cal. Penal Code § 26361, and individuals licensed to openly carry loaded firearms in sparsely populated counties, Cal. Penal Code § 26362, but does not exempt individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns. The people of California have spoken: they generally do not want to see openly-carried handguns, but they will accept the licensing of concealed handgun carrying. This is a valid choice under the Second Amendment.”
      Richards v Prieto 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 11-16255 10/25/2011 Docket Entry 37

      Kachalsky v. Cacace 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 11-3642

      1. kwik,
        I read elsewhere that just the tip of the gun was painted orange. Is that correct? If so, what was the intent of the paint if it wasn’t to disguise the handgun or deceive? And why was the tip painted orange like a toy? What purpose does that serve? A REASONABLE person would look at that and assume that it is a toy gun and NOT a real firearm. From the officer’s point of view, I would guess that if the tip wasn’t painted orange (a trick which criminals DO use, by the way) then maybe he would’ve let you go…but he was left feeling as if something “wasn’t right,” mostly likely because a REASONABLE person wouldn’t paint the tip of a real handgun orange.

          1. You didn’t answer my question. Don’t deflect…that a sure sign of a liar.

          2. The officer didn’t have a hunch. You painted the tip orange. That’s an articuable fact. Alex’s observation is completely plausible. It’s completely reasonable for an officer to assume by disguising the gun, perhaps your intent was criminal.

            I don’t think you’re going to find too many judges who are going to find that stop unreasonable.

            1. If I paint my honda green and put a wing and fart can on it does that mean my actions are criminal because i might be a street racer?

              1. That’s not a proper analogy… a more proper analogy would be outfitting your car with flashing lights in an attempt to impersonate an emergency vehicle, and a cop pulls you over, because he knows no law enforcement use that model vehicle in the area.

                1. I was licensed, so the better analogy is I was driving an emergency vehicle and was licensed to do so in the area. The ranger ignored that fact and detained me without cause.

                  1. And he would not know that fact without stopping you first, which is the crux if your case, isn’t it? That the stop was illegal?

                2. You fail to understand what happened in the park.

                  1. I walked on a path for about 1/2 hour.
                  2. I was stopped/detained, showed my carry permit, explained the gun was real, and gave the ranger the dimensions of my gun.
                  3. I was let go and walked another 1/2 hour.
                  4. Second ranger detained me at gun point and I was detained, searched, assaulted, battered, cuffed, and placed in a cop car. The total time of the second detention was almost 3 hours.

                  I am suing the second ranger.

              2. You’re still deflecting…

                Regarding your point on hunches, you would probably be astonished if you knew how many REALLY bad people are locked up behind bars because of a cop’s hunch or gut.

                Regardless, answer the question. Why paint the tip orange? The ONLY reason that I can think of is to make the real gun look like a toy. If that’s the case, then that does show a clear INTENT to deceive.

                1. Orange paint is not RAS or PC for a terry stop. Besides I had already been stopped by one ranger and showed him the gun, explained it was real, showed him my carry permit, and even stated the length of the barrel and why it was a lawful handgun.

            2. I was stopped twice that day. The first ranger let me go. He called a second and followed me for 20-30 minutes. It was after that time that I was stopped at gunpoint, searched, detained, cuffed, put in the back of a cop car. The total time was almost 3 hours. I am not suing the first ranger, only the second. Both rangers say I was not a threat to them.

              Here is the audio of the first ranger.


              1. This is really pathetic. You continue to deflect, deflect, deflect. You sound like the Bradys: “Must. Not. Answer. The. Question!”

                We’ve listened to the audio clip. It doesn’t answer my question. And to your point: you don’t have to be a threat for them to have a hunch that something isn’t right with you or your gun…especially when you painted the tip of a real gun orange to make it look like a toy.

                Let me make this very clear:


                1. You continue with your ad hominem attacks, why should I answer you questions? You are not interested in knowing the facts.

                2. I am actually VERY interested in the facts. YOU stated that you did not intend to deceive anyone by painting the tip orange, I am merely attempting to ascertain the FACTS surrounding your decision to do so.

                  By refusing to answer the question and deferring to claims of logical fallacies, you are merely weakening your position amongst reasonable people. Is my inquiry so difficult to answer?

                3. Is there upcoming legislation I should know about?

                  Now, instead of painting the muzzle nut orange, I’ll just paint the silencer orange.

  7. There are many at the leading edge of the second amendment fight that have cursed the name of Leonard Embody. Embody embodies just that person who is the subject of this warning … “some of the people who most harm gun rights are certain gun owners themselves. When you get egotistical, self-righteous, and imprudent people who proceed to do anything they want and damn the community, we end up with bad case law and the right to bear arms ultimately suffers.

    It’s good to be confident about our rights, and yes, I agree that the guarantee is that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Yet I would like to urge indignant individuals to realize that we don’t live in a perfect world of absolutes, but in an imperfect world with shades of grey.

    1. Groups such as the SAF and individuals such as Alan Gura have done more to hurt the 2A than I could ever do. They are the ones who argue against the free carry of arms. They argue that open carry should not be lawful. They argue in support of regulatory licensing schemes.

      1. And how many second amendment cases have you won so far, Leonard? I think you’re 0 for 1. I believe Gura is 2 for 0 if you count Heller and McDonald, and 3 for 0 if you count Ezell in the Seventh Circuit.

          1. He’s won the important battles. That’s what counts. You’re fighting a battle that’s only going to screw things up for everything else. I can appreciate you point of view on the fact that it’s your right, but it’s everyone else’s right too, and that’s what you’re putting in jeopardy by fighting a lost cause pro se.

            1. None of my cases have been heard by a federal court of appeals or the us supreme court.

              1. And I will continue to pray they won’t be heard, or will at least be disposed of with minimal damage to the right to bear arms.

      2. You’re talking about checkers while Gura and company are playing chess.

        The FACT of the matter is that they are WINNING battles for people that previously had virtually ZERO 2A rights recognized by their local government. Gura and the SAF can’t walk into a courtroom in today’s day and age, with a 5-4 conservative-liberal split in the SCOTUS and ride a hardline to RKBA freedom and bliss. Gura would be sitting at 0-2 (or 3 as Seb mentioned) if he used your “tactics.”

        You might not agree with the stance he has taken in some of his cases, but you are losing the forest for the trees. There is a much bigger picture and Gura/SAF have plans in the works to bring this country closer to 2nd Amendment freedom than it has been in the last 100 years.

        1. Gura’s plan is to have a right become a privilege. He has stated such in his briefs. If he is playing chess for the 2A he has lost.

            1. I’ve already provided the citation. richards v prieto, kachalsky v cadace, and the amicus in my case.

      3. You don’t have 5 Justices of the US Supreme Court on your side.

        Chief Justice John Roberts, born in New York State, raised in Indiana. New York State doesn’t allow OC on foot outside of home, and Indiana is a licensed open carry state.

        Justice Samuel Alito, born and raised in Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey is a licensed open carry state……

        Justice Antonin Scalia, born and raised in Trenton, New Jersey and New York City, NY. New Jersey is a “licensed open carry state”, and New York completely bans OC off your home property….

        Justice Clarence Thomas. Born in Pin Point, Georgia. Georgia had been since the turn of the 20th Century to be a licensed open carry state…..

        Justice Anthony Kennedy. Born in Sacramento, California. Was formerly a “licensed OC” since 1967 state until early 2009, and now UOC will be banned there too as of the first of next year….

        Read this next part carefully, Leonard….

        The reason Gura gears his arguments towards accepting the licensing (he doesn’t pre-judge the constitutionality of licensing, “prayer for relief” remember) is because he realizes that the 5 Justices who would expand our pre-existing right are not the rabid folks like us who believe that nearly all forms of gun control are ineffective and jumps for joy and celebrates when states like AZ and AK pass permitless concealed carry.

        Do your research on Charles Hamilton Houston. Of course I have serious doubts that you will seriously look at my arguments, because you’re convinced your right, have worked yourself up to the point of this apparent insanity, endangering the rights of everyone in the 6th Circuit with your crap case…..

        1. I’ll accept an anti-gun ruling as long as it harms the cases of the SAF and Calguns. I just want a ruling, and I will get one. If I lose my appeal and certiorari is denied I accomplish that goal and the ironic part is that the SAF and calguns will have in essence asked for it with their amicus. lol

          1. Thank you for answering my question. You are a selfish person out to destroy the Second Amendment. It is clear to me now.

            1. No,I have a right to bear arms. It is the SAF, Calguns, and Alan Gura who would like the court to side against me. A vote against me is a vote against the 2A. SAF and Gura were playing checkers and I chess.

              1. I think the key word here is I. Because pretty clearly this is all about you. It’s not about the Constituton, our Republic, or the Second Amemdmemt. It’s all about you.

                1. That is correct. I have the right to bear arms. I was assaulted while I exercised that right. I sued because I believe I was wronged.

                  SAF/Gura feel I shouldn’t have the right to openly carry a lawful handgun. SAF/Gura filed an amicus against me and the 2A. SAF/Gura wants a licensing scheme to exercise a right. SAF/Gura would have a right become a privilege.

                  SAF/Gura are looking out for their interests. I am looking out for mine. The only difference is that my interest is in favor of 2A rights while they have an expressed interest in destroying the right through licensing and other regulatory schemes.

          2. I’ll accept an anti-gun ruling as long as it harms the cases of the SAF and Calguns.

            And the wickedness is laid bare for all to see…..

            SAF/Gura filed an amicus against me and the 2A.

            You =| 2A.

            1. No, saf/gura/calguns are anti-2A. I am trying to exercise my rights under the amendment and they are the ones who are against the exercise thereof.

              1. What you’re doing is floating a dookie in the pool, to be frank. And I think you enjoy watching the reaction. Perhaps not all that different from an arsonist, either.

                1. Floating “dookies” in a public pool is illegal. Arson is illegal. My actions are lawful.

                2. Not for long they won’t be. Things like what you did are how bad laws get passed. It was lawful for the Black Panthers to open carry rifles in Sac until it terrified the white people so much that they banned it for everyone. If you do something that’s legal but scares people in a politically sensitive manner, it’s just going to compel the sheeple and dumb politicians to pass bad laws that hurt everyone—and that included you.

                3. The black panthers exercised a fundamental right and government infringed upon that right. Where is the SAF, Calguns and peterson? They are nowhere to be found, because they don’t care about your constitutional right to bear arms. They want a licensing scheme to regulate who may and may not possess a firearm or carry permit.

  8. Carl from Chicago, I think I know your point, but let me ask you: would you allow “shades of gray” with regard to your right to life (e.g., pragmatic exceptions: the old and sickly, the deformed infant)? Or your right to liberty (your guns and religion make you a “suspected” terrorist whom we can detain without charge indefinitely – Janet Napolitano and the recently passed defense authorization bill)? How about your right to property (you wealthy need to pay for everyone else’s retirement/social security since you can afford it – Pres. Obama)? I don’t think you would. I wouldn’t. And I certainly won’t with regard to the ONLY right that protects and guarantees all the others – the absolute right of a militarily armed citizenry! That right must be kept absolutely uninfringed, or you will have no rights at all.

  9. The question is, do Embody’s actions increase the breadth of the 2nd Amendment, and lead to overall permanent gains of freedom?

    The answer: No.

    1. I wasn’t looking to expand firearms freedoms, only exercise freedoms which are already mine. Rights and liberties that existed before the founding of this country. Rights and liberties that have since been convoluted and infringed by a tyrannical government.

      1. Such Rights and liberties only exist in textbooks and not in reality. Gun rights in this country have only been real for 3 years, and few nuances have been flushed out.

        Until the entire country has a right to carry, you are harming the cause.

        1. The right exists, it is not recognized. I can’t be held responsible when cops break the laws and violate my rights. I would stress, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State…SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.”

          1. It’s just words on a piece of paper until the courts say otherwise. SAF and Alan Gura are currently getting the courts to move in that direction. They are doing it through wise strategy. You are trying to do it through foolishness that not only isn’t going to work, it’s going to backfire severely, and the rest of us are going to have to live with the mess you created.

            Do us all a favor and stop. Let experts handle this. You are not an expert. I am not an expert. Alan Gura is.

            1. No crap, which is why I have sued. You’re right that gura is an expert, an expert at writing briefs which would have the courts limit my rights.

          2. Yes, you have that right. And yes, the cops have violated it. However, if in the process you are charged with a crime and your actions result in bad laws and cases that get bad precedent enshrined in law, the result will be a loss, not a victory. You may be left with the moral high ground that your rights were violated, but in the real world, you’ve made everything worse for everyone, including yourself. Better to win than claim the moral high ground and get pummeled for it.

            1. I have not been charged with a crime because my actions were lawful and protected by the 2A. At least the 2A as understood in 1833 Tennessee. The SAF, GURA, Calguns, and others don’t think those same rights exist today which is why they oppose open carry. It is why they support regulatory schemes which license what was a right. They would have our rights converted to privileges.

    1. The better question is, why have the SAF, Gura, Calguns and the Brady campaign aligned on the restriction of a fundamental right?

  10. I’ve said it before, and it’s appropriate here, how do you explain the concept of “chess, not checkers” to people who can’t even win a game of tic-tac-toe?

  11. What is somewhat sad is that Mr Embody doesn’t understand the difference between what Tennessee law may or may not mean and what it may or may not allow and what the contours of the Federal Second Amendment are. If Kwirk-n-u was, then he would have filed in state court and/or made a state RKBA claim instead of a Federal 2A claim.

    People who don’t understand the bi-sovereign system probably shouldn’t be trying to push the envelope of same.


    1. I have a state claim pending a decision. My federal claim is valid and sound based upon the 2A as understood in 1833 Tennessee and many other States whose RKBA was similar to the federal government.

      I feel sorry for you gene. You banned me from calguns because you can’t handle a difference of opinion and now you’re stalking me…

      1. As it clearly states on Calguns, I am not a moderator there.

        Stalking you? Stay out of Federal courts of appeals with losing claims and you’ll not hear from me.

        I still want to hear your answer to the question of why you painted the tip orange. Why is that?

        Also, you enjoy mis-citing what we say in Richards. Unloaded open carry is not a manner of carry protected by the 2A. LOC might very well be, but it’s not clear that the state can’t choose loaded concealed versus loaded open carry.

        Such nuances aren’t your strong suit.


        1. I’m correct in what I have cited, I took it straight from the opening brief in richards. There is no sense in repeating what the SAF, Gura, and Calguns has said in their anti-2A attack on me. It was straight from the brady campaign or LCAV. The SAF and calguns has never been pro-2A, so their briefs should be no surprise.

          Your brief will have no effect on my case because win or lose it will be appealed to the scotus. I think they will take it for good or bad. Either way I win, and your group will win if I lose.

            1. Maybe, maybe not. You can’t determine that the anti-gun justices won’t take the case.

              1. Let me get this straight.

                It takes four justices to decide to take a case. You’re looking at all the pro-gun justices voting to not take your case, and all the anti-gun justices voting to grant cert on your case.

                And you’re not seeing this as a problem? Are you delusional, or just out to destroy the Sceond Amendment? What side are you really on in this?

                1. It must be conceded that it is a strong possibility that four anti-2A justices will take my case. All it takes is kennedy to side with them and the SAF and calguns gets their amicus wish.

                2. It must be conceded that it is a strong possibility that four anti-2A justices will take my case.

                  Ding! Ding! Ding! You’re an anti-gun judge’s wet dream! You either refuse to realize that or are actually working to undermine gun rights.

                3. If a judge sides against me it is what the SAF and Alan Gura want. So, what is the problem?

                4. You’ve already lost. What they are trying to accomplish is to offer judges a way to rule against you that does minimal damage to the right to bear arms. No federal judge is going to rule in your favor. Just ain’t happening.

        1. Oh yeah, right. Big dog breeder conspiracy. Just like how you think Alan Gura is out to destroy the Second Amendment.

          As I said, laughing stock.

  12. I can’t believe I have to be the one to say this, but “Don’t Feed the Troll!”.

    Anyone in this discussion who thinks they’re going to change Kwikrnu’s mind is deluded. (And, while we might accept that handle as attached to Mr. Embody, there’s no proof of which I’m aware.)

    This discussion is going to be around for a long time, and all it is doing is providing “citations” for the other side to mine, smelt, and use against good 2A jurisprudence and publicity.

    1. The 40+ page amicus against the 2A provided good material for LCAV, Brady, and the defendants of SAF lawsuits. Since SAF has not posted the amicus at their page I sent a copy of the amicus to LCAV, Brady, and as many of the defendants emails that I could find. lol

      No one will change my mind. The words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” comes to mind when I think about the Second Amendment. Apparently the SAF, Gura, Gene, Calguns, and others feel differently.

      1. The 40+ page amicus against the 2A provided good material for LCAV, Brady, and the defendants of SAF lawsuits. Since SAF has not posted the amicus at their page I sent a copy of the amicus to LCAV, Brady, and as many of the defendants emails that I could find. lol

        To all the naive folks who think this guy is fighting for the Second Amendment, this should be proof positive that this guy is rabidly anti-gun, and just fighting from a different angle.

        Wake the hell up, you fools.

        1. I didn’t write the amicus curiae, it was written by Alan Gura, SAF and Calguns. If the amicus is spot on then why shouldn’t the defendents in Haynie have a copy? The words of the brief are not mine, they are Alan Gura’s.

          1. I don’t understand why you would give your enemy ammunition. That just seems like a foolish thing to do.

            1. I don’t know why the SAF filed the amicus curiae against me…very foolish on their part. It will come back to haunt them in several of their lawsuits.

          2. Has anyone read the SAF/Calguns/Gura amicus? Have you compared it to the Brady amicus which was filed on 12-19-11? Sounds like these guys all work in the same office.

  13. At the risk of exposing myself as a “naive fool” (courtesy of Mike), I should like to thank kwikrnu for not once hurling a personal insult against the commenters on this blog. I only wish we could be credited with the same civilty.

    Regarding the substantive criticisms, I found one, by JeremyS and you, dear Sebastian, quite appalling: to say rights only exist in a textbook and are only words on a paper until a branch of government says they exist defies everything our Founding Fathers said and indeed brands them criminals for fighting against a government that said they don’t exist! Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” not “We await the English courts to declare these truths to be true.” He went on, “all men are…endowed by their Creator (not by some supreme Court) with certain (not tenuous; not changing with the times or whims of future court decisions) unalienable (granted irrevocably by God/nature, not by court opinion) rights.” Oh, sir, what you and JeremyS wrote I would have expected to hear from a statist, not a libertarian.

    Respectfully, Arnie

    1. Natural rights are a philosophical construct, designed to provide a framework to explain rights and how to think about them. It’s different from their practical application. You may have a right to bear arms naturally, but that doesn’t have to translate into the government respecting it. To do accomplish that takes a legal strategy, very carefully thought out, and very carefully executed. There are many people who have thought out this problem for years, and there is a reasonable plan to get to a robust Second Amendment enforced by the Courts.

      The problem with Leonard Embody is that he is not a careful and strategic individuals, and has no plan for success legally. This entire thing is a selfish crusade that will serve no purposes other than hurting the Second Amendent in the end, and we all get to live with that, not just Leonard Embody.

      1. I have not hurt the 2A, it is people like Alan Gura, SAF, and Calguns who have written briefs against the 2A who have done the damage. I have only exercised my right to bear arms and demand law enforcement be held accountable for misdeeds.

    2. And do you believe that this is how Mr Embody is fighting for your Second Amendment rights:

      The 40+ page amicus against the 2A provided good material for LCAV, Brady, and the defendants of SAF lawsuits. Since SAF has not posted the amicus at their page I sent a copy of the amicus to LCAV, Brady, and as many of the defendants emails that I could find. lol

      You and the other fringe supporters are as bad as this guy because you help to enable him.

  14. If I may add to my above post: If we really believe that only government bestows our rights, then we are doomed indeed! For as Ronald Reagan (and many others before him) declared, “Anything government can give, it can also take away!” That, my friends, does not make for “unalienable!”

    Our Founders did not go to war because England did not give them certain rights – they fought their tyrannical government because it refused to recognize and respect the rights they already had as a gift from God (or nature, if you prefer)!!!

    I see kwikrnu’s principles far more congruent with those of our Founders than anything written by his antagonists. If that makes me a fool, then I am in good company with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams.

    Again, respectfully, Arnie

    1. I don’t think you’re a fool for believing in natural rights. I believe that is the correct way in which to view rights, and if everyone else thought the same way, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But we are in this mess, and the question is how to get out of it. The answer to that problem is roughly how we got into it… baby step by baby step.

  15. Mr. Argent and Sebastian:

    I agree with the pragmatism of your approach and and with your warning – as did Jefferson: “Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes…and men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to abolish the forms to which they are accustomed.”

    Obviously a single incident of being wrongfully denied open carry of a strangely colored handgun does not constitute “a long train of abuses…whose direct object is to reduce [us] under absolute despotism,” but somewhere on this thread it was stated that we have not enjoyed our full right to arms for nearly 100 years (perhaps that was kwikrnu). At some point, the train of abuses and usurpations exceeds the “while evils are sufferable” limit. When that point is…. I just know it’s not yet.

    But the real danger is the attitude, or misguided belief, that our rights are legislated or court-established rather than unalienable. As (of all people!) the late Senator Robert Byrd quoted Jefferson from the latter’s Memorial: “Can a nation’s liberties long endure if we remove the notion that these liberties are the gift of God?”

    I beg you my friends, never lose sight of that “notion.” Whatever you may think of kwikrnu, I’m betting he hasn’t forgotten where our rights originate.

    Very respectfully, Arnie

  16. I know where they came from and the exercise thereof, “SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.”

    Unless someone on a blog titled, “Shall not be questioned” decides that the right of the citizen to bear arms really isn’t a right, only a privilege. Hypocritical? lol

    1. Look at you. You love this attention, that’s why half of these comments are yours. Is this what you get off on? Having everyone paying attention to you? Congratulations, mission accomplished – at least for this one blog post.

      This will be your legacy – a little man working to destroy the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Good for you. Others accomplish something, while the best you can hope to accomplish is to be a thorn in the side of decent people.

      You know what would really get your name out there and focus everyone’s attention on you? When you visit the state capital dressed like a tacticool nutjob, why don’t you refuse to put your hands up when the officers tell you. I mean, nobody has to put their hands up while exercising a right, right? In fact, you should just ignore them and keep strolling along like they’re not there. Anything less and you’re just letting them trample your rights. If you do this, you’ll almost certainly make the nightly news, and the whole country will be talking about whether you are a patriot or a psycho. Think of all the attention you’ll have, and all the internet comments you can write on gun blogs. It would be epic.

      1. I didn’t count my comments, but one suggestion is that when multiple people ask questions or make statements I will respond to each individually. That means if 10 seperate individuals ask one question each and I answer 10 questions, I have, in fact, 10 times as many posts as anyone else.

    2. The statement is an ideal. It does not reflect reality. You are doing nothing to help get us close to that ideal. In fact, you’re moving us farther away from it. By your very statements, you admit this.

    3. Leonard,

      The sad thing is that many of us have NO PROBLEM with what you were doing when you got arrested. But your attitude about this whole thing is unbelievable. Next, you’re going to take your suppressed AR pistol to the Capitol?! While wearing body armor and a mag carrier? What the EFF for?! Because you can? Because it’s your right?! Other than piss people off and potentially make every gun loving American’s life worse, what purpose does that serve? It’s childish and selfish.

      I have a right to be an asshole in public…freedom of speech and all that. But eventually, I will get arrested for disturbing the peace. And everyone would look at me and say, “What a dumbass” as the police drag me away, kicking and screaming about my 1st Amendment right. That’s how we feel about you. Maybe you should take a few bites of some humble pie and more of us would be on your side.

      1. The open wearing of arms is not disturbing the peace. It is the exercise of a right. The exercise of the fundamental right to self defense.

        You’re telling me to take some humble pie? I am merely peacefully open carrying a firearm. You and others are the ones who make demands.

        1. Then why did you paint the tip orange? Of all the aspects of your situation I find objectionable, this is the biggest one.

          1. Why is that objectionable? Is it the orange color instead of pink that you don’t like? Is it that orange signifies violence? Some other reason? If you dislike orange guns why haven’t you combined forces to outlaw the color orange on firearms?

            Listen to the this audio and tell me I made an attempt to disguise the fact that the handgun was real from the ranger or anyone else.


            You see, it is not the orange color you and others dislike. It is that I dared open carry an ak pistol. That is why so many are angry that I will open carry an ar pistol which has no orange paint on it. It has nothing to do with orange paint. In fact, when I was stopped by the rangers the only comment made about the orange muzzle nut was the comment by the first ranger heard on the audio recording. Months later in depositions and interrogatories when the rangers start inventing reasons to excuse their behavior is when the orange muzzle nut became an issue. In the end it is an irrelevant issue, because it is lawful to paint a gun whatever color I choose.

              1. What does it signify? Is there a law which requires end users of toy guns to have an orange colored muzzle?

                NO, there is no such law where I live and there is no federal law which requires this. Look at any airsoft forum and you will see videos and tips on how to remove the orange paint or plastic cover from the barrels of those toys. Youtube has hundreds of videos showing how to do this. An airsoft toy with a black muzzle is legal to own and use and you will hardly ever see one with an orange muzzle.

                The point is that color does not indicate the deadly nature of a firearm. Orange may mean toy, but it may indicate the firearm is real.

                1. There actually is a federal law that requires the muzzle to be blaze orange in toy guns that are shipped. What you do with it beyond the purchase is your business, but there was no purpose to painting the tip orange other than to be an ass.

                2. Explain why the painting a firearm the color orange is being an ass. As I established in the previous post the color of a firearm does not determine if it is deadly or even if it is a firearm.

                  If you heard the audio you hear the words I use at the lake. I am not an ass. I tell the ranger within the first few seconds that the gun is indeed real. I also tell the ranger why the gun is a handgun. Not only do I do that, but I also show him my handgun carry permit. That ranger states in depositions that he was not threatened nor did he feel threatened. I have about 30 minutes of audio before that which shows that no one else was threatened.

                3. Painting THE TIP orange is being an ass because YOU WERE LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. You were HOPING someone would stop you and challenge you then you could show everyone how “smart” you are. It’s not like you were just strolling through the park with your gun; you had your audio recorder going, apparently we now know, for a most (or all) of your walk. The only people who do stuff like that are people who KNOW that an authority figure is going to approach them.

                  And again, I don’t give a rats ass that you carried an AK pistol or anything else. I care that 1) You painted the tip orange to make the gun look like a toy…which the entire intent is to deceive and force an authority figure to approach you about it and 2) your reaction to this whole thing after the fact. You’re acting like a 5 year old, primarily your indignant claim that you’re going to go to the Capitol carrying your suppressed AR pistol…as if that will accomplish anything other than provide the anti-gun lobby with more fodder against ALL gun owners and make you look like even more of a jackass.

                4. When I carry a gun I carry an audio recorder. It keeps the cops kind of honest.

                5. So you carry a running audio recorder with you every second of every day? You stated that you’re carrying these weapons for self-defense, which leads me to believe that you are always carrying, thus always have a running audio recorder.

                6. I didn’t say I keep a running recorder. I carry one and turn it on when needed, except in radnor lake I mistakenly turned it on and fortunately captured ranger walsh’s words.

          2. I’m glad you do not object to me carrying a black ar pistol with a black silencer. :)

            1. Overall, I don’t object to that, other than the fact that it’s a piss poor choice for a self-defense weapon.

  17. Wow. I’m amazed, astonished and abashed. The level of ragehate is impressive and the touting of opinion as truth is unusually high for the comment section of this blog. Let’s face it folks, if you just think Mr. Embody’s a fool then you’ll seize any opourtunity to deride him or debase and ignore his arguements.

    IMO (if never a humble one) Mr. Embody could have handled this better, but never actually commited a crime. As to the pro/anti leanings of Mr. Gura, I really only have the opinion that he’s a lawyer. He’s done good work on occasion, be the fact remains, he’s a lawyer. Same for the SAF, No organization exists unless it’s to benefit the organization and it’s members. That often means that they throw non-members under the bus to acheive their aims.

    As to the nature of rights, I really would like to see the logic behind the “gift of God” line of reasoning. What if I deny the existance or authority of the christian god? Do I receive no rights? For that matter, can anyone defend the position that there are such things as inalienable rights at all?

    Oh, and yeah it’s also my opinion that an AR pistol, can or no can, is a crap defense piece. Get a SBS permit for a 12″ saiga pistol. Much better for defensive purposes. ;-)

        1. Because he starved for attention, silly. Next stunt: bringing his lavender Saiga to a crowded playground, with loaded drums strapped to his chest. Don’t worry, he’ll “mistakenly” turn on the audio recorder again, so we get to hear all the screaming parents and children on YouTube. And then you can defend him again for “never actually committing a crime.”

          1. Why would people scream at the sight of a gun? No one screamed at radnor lake. No one screamed on MARTA. No one screamed in the atlanta hartsfield airport. No one screamed in belle meade when I open carried in the hand.

            1. Take a step back and look at your comments here. Both the volume and the contents of your comments are not indicative of someone who is well, IMHO. It looks like you’re either rabidly anti-gun, or you need psychological help, or both. A crazy person would reply “But it’s the SAF who is trying to undermine gun rights while I’m fighting for them!” – so I fully expect just that sort of response.

              1. another ad hominem atack…

                I’ve already cited that the brady campaign and SAF hold similar positions on firearms regulatory schemes. I have cited SAF briefs which show they are anti-2A. Instead of attempting to show me why I am wrong (can’t be done) you have elected to attack me. Those with no defense rely upon attacks, as you have. There will be many who believe you because they are too lazy to look at the facts.

              2. Wait, so his options are; admit he’s a banner or admit he’s crazy? Hmmm…. that sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy. I keep noticing that people like to toss around the “crazy” label. Seems like an attempt to dismiss an opponent and discredit his position based on an emotional appeal, rather than logic.

  18. To Rauobjorn:

    Excellent question!

    According to Jefferson, “nature or nature’s God” endowed you with unalienable rights whether you believe in a God or not.

    It would be akin to an orphan or adopted child receiving red hair genes from his biological father even though, having never met him, he doesn’t recognize his father’s paternal gift. Not believing doesn’t make it any less real. It just means I am unaware of the reality.

    Plus, Jefferson, an Old Testament quoting deist, allowed in the Declaration for rights endowed by nature if there were no God. And the legal force of natural law has a long and storied history of acceptance in Anglo-American jurisprudence, especially in the minds and motives of the authors of our Constitution, making its authority more than just a passing interest.

    So you are still covered!

    With all respect, Arnie

    1. Arnie,
      The only law of nature is the survival of the fittest and the only natural Right is right to try to survive, by any means possible.

      In order for God to be acceptable as an authority to imbue man with anything, we have to be able to prove his existence (or at least fail to fail to disprove his existance). Since finding samples upon which to perform testing with is rather difficult, I cannot do either, and I must default to “If I can’t prove it, it’s not fact”. If there is no God then the “Inalianable Rights” supposedly imbued by him in us, cannot be real. Then we must fall back on natural law and natural Rights.

  19. Mike, are you presentient? Clairvoyant prehaps? Or are you simply lashing out at someone who does not fit your preconcieved notion of how your tribe should act?

    If Mr. Embody commits a crime, I will condemn his actions just as readily as I would a politician’s. But until that time (and as he’s specifically mentioned knowledge of TN law concerning the carry of a shotgun, I doubt he will comply with your prediction) I will acknowledge the truth of the situation.

    To wit; Mr. Embody has commited no crime. He merely makes people uncomfortable. Specifically, he makes YOU uncomfortable. I’m OK with that. I think he’s acted foolishly, but I will not berate him over it, and I’ll thank you not to berate me over my refusal to do so.

    I also note that your last comment was an attack against him, and not a rational argument.

  20. To Rauobjorn:

    I confess you make an excellent point: one should only impose natural law (or rights) where such law or rights can be proven in nature.

    I humbly submit that the enlightened minds of the revolutionary era (Locke, Madison, Voltaire, Paine, et al.), whether religious, deist, or atheist, were firmly convinced of a broader scope of natural rights and law than simply survival.

    I would ask, is it beyond human nature to expect that how I would want others to treat me should dictate my treatment of them? Locke believed it to be natural, and Montesque and Madison similarly so. Hence the laws against theft, murder, injury, false witness, false imprisonment and fraud were classified as natural. By the same token, these laws presuppose rights to life, liberty and property, and self-defense.

    I realize I’ve not proven any of this to you, but my point is the Founders’ reasoning proved it TO THEM, and they codified it in a Declaration and a Constitution that they declared supreme law, and under which we either tacitly or declaratorily commit to live.

    They also declared a right to revolution against tyranny – powerfully expressed in the Declaration. In fact, Jefferson declared it both a right AND a duty.

    I know this doesn’t prove they were right, but I think it shows that the nation, its laws, and our rights are predicated on these “natural absolutes.” And until we have another revolution to change them, they are, or at least should be, the strict rule of all government policy.

    I apologize if the above was confusing; Locke and Madison explain it much better!

    Sincerely, Arnie

    1. Arnie,
      Not at all, you explain it very well. And while you did not proves that any of the enumerated rights are “natural”, I agree that they are necessary. Yes it is outside man’s nature to want to be treated by others as we would like to be treated. Naturally, humans are selfish creatures that want what they want and they want it now (i.e. children must be taught to share and play fairly). However, it is not beyond man’s nature to improve what he finds lacking. And so we develop ethics, to more easily get along with our neighbors. We develop moral codes to more easily get on with ourselves and our kith and kin.

      And while I agree that the rights enumerated in the constitution (for the most part) are an absolute must as an ethical code in order to ensure an ethical and equitable society, they are by no means “natural”. We must have these essential liberties, because without them, we would be reduced to “survival of the fittest”.

      That’s what the constitution actually is; a guide for how we deal with each other. Not morally, but ethically. The constitution does not address comportment, modes of behavior or religious dogma, but what one cannot, indeed must not do to one another in order for the American society to survive. It does not address the fashion in which we treat other nations, but ourselves.

      Most laws start out as moral codes, which are meant to instruct us in how we deal with our families and clans. As we became more civilized, these codes became law, partly because of “tradition” and partly because, for the most part, the entire “civilized” population of the earth was in some form of servitude to another (serfdom, peonage, slavery, etc). Those who were not were in a position of power, through force of arms, and held the rest in servitude, using “morality” as a way to ensure their dominance.

      Several times the idea of “freedom” and “liberty” surfaced as national or tribal motivations (Greece, Scandinavia, Rome) but each was inherently flawed, partly because of blind spots (most tellingly, extra-tribal slavery) and partly because of technology. The only thing that makes a keeps a man free, is the willingness, and the capability to kill those who would enslave him. The constitution is supposed to show us how to avoid having to hang every third politician every couple of years.

      It wasn’t until the advent of halfway decent firearms that it became possible for a group of near anarchists to found a nation dedicated to the idea that each man is a sovereign entity unto himself. That he had prerogatives previously only afforded the nobility; the freedom to speak his mind without fear, the freedom to bear arms and strike down any man who attacked him, the freedom to be secure in his own person, the freedom to have his opinion weighed and be counted in decision making.

      And that is really what the whole Left vs. Right, Red vs. Blue, Tea Party vs. Everyone Else conflict is about. Whether we will continue to be sovereign men, or serfs in service to the state.

  21. Dear Rauobjorn:

    Sir, I am sincerely impressed with your response! It was cogent, thought-provoking, reasoned, considerate, and witty. I salute you, sir!

    Your description of man’s natural state and impulse, and the laws and rights attending that condition seem reasonable and accurate to me.

    I truly wish the Founders were here to respond because I must confess, I am at a loss. Your polemic is sound.

    I shall do more reading of the Founders’ thoughts and try to give you as wonderful a reply as you gave me.

    Till then, thank you for making me think!!!

    With much affection, Arnie

      1. The SAF and Brady are on the same page. So, why is it wrong for Brady to file an amicus curiae and right for the SAF to do so?

    1. You do realize that you’re pleased that known advocates of gun control are apparently on you side, right? You can’t handle snakes without expecting to get bit.

      1. Both the SAF and Brady are anti-gun rights. One wants the case heard the other does not, but there is no difference between them as far as open carry, permitless carry, or the carry of an ak pistol. The SAF and Alan Gura are going to regret the amicus curiae against my lawsuit.

Comments are closed.